Download Football Insider 2010, a free iPhone app perfect for Redskins fans. It features breaking news from this blog; player and team-focused daily stories written by The Post's Redskins beat reporters; analysis by the Post's award-winning columnists; and game-day photo galleries to go along with full, updating play-by-play and statistics from each game.

Santana Moss's contract voids today: so what are the Redskins' options?

In December, the 10-year veteran said he hoped to return to the team he has led in receiving six consecutive seasons. But do the Redskins still want Moss? And if Washington is interested in re-signing him, what will it take to get a deal done?

It's believed Moss is seeking a two- or three-year deal that averages about $5 million a season. The Redskins renegotiated Moss's contract in May 2009.

He received a signing bonus of more than $6.2 million and had a base salary of $968,500 last season. Under the terms of the renegotiation, the remainder of Moss's deal voided after the 2010 season.

Although Moss turns 32 in June, he could remain productive for a few more seasons. Last season, he proved to be a good fit in offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan's system. Playing multiple receiver positions, Moss had a career-high 93 receptions for 1,115 yards (topping the 1,000-yard mark for fourth time in his career) and six touchdowns.

It would seem to make sense for the Redskins to re-sign him. The problem with their passing attack last season wasn't Moss -- it was the lack of consistent options in addition to Moss and Anthony Armstrong.

It would appear the Redskins could have some intriguing options, whether they decide to replace Moss or re-sign him and bolster their receiving corps with other potential free agents.

Of course, even when it comes to free agency, we don't know for sure how everything will play out until a new CBA is agreed upon. But once the CBA is settled, it's believed that the top free agent receivers will be Vincent Jackson, Sidney Rice, Santonio Holmes, Braylon Edwards, Steve Smith, Terrell Owens and Randy Moss. But they all may not be available or want to sign with the Redskins.

The 6-foot-4 Rice would meet the Redskins' longtime need for a big, dependable target. There's talk, however, Minnesota could use its franchise tag on him, and the New York Jets may do the same with Holmes.

The Redskins passed on both Owens and Moss when they could have pursued them last season (Owens as a free agent and Moss through waivers). It would seem unlikely that either would receive interest from Mike Shanahan & co.

That leaves Edwards (53 catches, 904 yards and seven TDs) and Smith (49 catches, 529 yards, three touchdowns) for consideration. Or there could be other lower-profile receivers the Redskins may believe could help them.

Another receiver expected to become a free agent is San Diego's Malcom Floyd, who at 6-5, 225 pounds has size. Floyd had 37 catches for 717 yards and six touchdowns in 11 games last season. And then there is Plaxico Burress, who will be an unrestricted free agent as he attempts to make a comeback after two years in prison.

As for the draft, Alabama's Julio Jones is expected to be available in the 10th to 15th-pick range. But a pass-rusher to complement Brian Orakpo or a quarterback likely are higher priorities for the Redskins, who have the No. 10 pick.

When did the Mayor shave his goatee and glue the shavings to the top of his head???

Posted by: RedskinJim1 | February 11, 2011 1:42 PM
------------------------------------------
And if we called Reid "The Mayor", what do we call this guy? The Superintendent? The Commissioner? The Director?

umm, hello WP.. what the heck is all this talk about free or restricted agent signings? I saw a lot of balls being caught in quick hitting college spread offenses. Are you honestly suggesting we can't get good recievers via draft? Stop this FA/Trade insanity now...

I disagree. It's only perception if you ignore word definitions. I think there's a lot of vaginas out there that just don't know what racism is anymore. Racism used to be the belief that a race was either superior or inferior to another race. Now, all you have to do is mention race and you're a racist. The term redskin doesn't imply superiority or inferiority therefore it's not racist. Everyone wants to be a victim. Let's be honest here, nobody uses the term redskin as derogatory unless they're talking about our crappy football team.

When did the Mayor shave his goatee and glue the shavings to the top of his head???

Posted by: RedskinJim1 | February 11, 2011 1:42 PM
------------------------------------------
And if we called Reid "The Mayor", what do we call this guy? The Superintendent? The Commissioner? The Director?

When did the Mayor shave his goatee and glue the shavings to the top of his head???

Posted by: RedskinJim1 | February 11, 2011 1:42 PM
------------------------------------------
And if we called Reid "The Mayor", what do we call this guy? The Superintendent? The Commissioner? The Director?

I hear ya, PA - but if someone is offended by the language I use, I'm sorry.

There are plenty of terms we used back in the 70's and had no idea they were racist. They were or they weren't depending on who used them and how. We were just ignorant, in most cases.

If a Native American is offended by my use of the term Redskin, I apologize and defer. I'm not going to stop using it now, 'cause we're not there yet as a society. They will have to suffer with my apologies.

My point is, the only group/person who can define whether it's racist or not, is the group that counts itself victim. And until the human race is so convoluted that our definitions of race no longer apply, someone will always be offended by some historical interpretation or other.

Brings me back to the Census taker who was so desperately trying to pigeon-hole my wife into a pre-defined race characteristic. Baals to all that. It doesn't exist in empirical reality (which doesn't actually exist either, btw).

The more they try to 'fight' racism, the more they perpetuate it and even institutionalize it.

If you have to debate whether your name is racist... it's probably racist.

Someday all this will be obviated. But it's not, now. Racism still exists. Our team name can reflect that. It's really all in one's perception.

Posted by: DikShuttle | February 11, 2011 1:34 PM | Report abuse

If we were called the Washington Scalpers then I'd see a problem with it, but I have looked this up and have proof, our name is derived not from hate or racism, but from the actual PAINTING OF FACES using a RED coloring.

I guess the biggest problem I have with this is that the majority of the people making a stink about it, wait for it......AREN'T EVEN F*CKING NATIVE AMERICANS!!! It's dumb pale face hippies trying to take up a cause and change something that they think is racist, yet I've still yet heard 1 of them give me proof that it is racist.

They took a poll at a few Indian Reservations and OVER 90% of the Native Americans said they weren't offended.

This is our world today, it only takes 1 idiot to be offended at something for other idiots to flock to them and join the 'idiot circle' to try and change something they know nothing about.

Why did they change the name of Washington's NBA team? Was Washington Bullets really that inappropriate? No, not at all, but a small group of people fought to get it changed and they succeeded. I hope the courts don't buckle under the pressure of just a few morons and see that IT'S JUST A NAME!!!

Oh, and it didn't help us that our owner at the time was one of the world's biggest racists. Thanks Marshall!!!

"The term redskin doesn't imply superiority or inferiority therefore it's not racist. Everyone wants to be a victim. Let's be honest here, nobody uses the term redskin as derogatory unless they're talking about our crappy football team.Posted by: PAskinsfan17"

Recommend Former Auburn quarterback and likely first-round draft pick Cam Newton worked out for the media at a San Diego-area high school Thursday.

While the Heisman Trophy winner got some positive reviews as he tries to tailor his game from the Tigers' spread offense to a pro scheme that requires taking direct snaps from the center -- similar to what Broncos first-rounder Tim Tebow went through a year ago -- NFL Network chief draft analyst Mike Mayock offered words of caution.

Former Auburn QB Cam Newton works out in San Diego on Feb. 10.CAPTIONBy Chris Park, AP
"I've watched five of his game tapes, he's got a classic over-hand delivery, he's got a big arm," Mayock said on Thursday's NFL Total Access.

"His mechanics are very good, but I would also (offer) one cautionary note, and that is the best pro day for a quarterback I ever attended was JaMarcus Russell. That same day, even though I admitted it was the best pro day I ever saw, I also said I wouldn't take him in the first round. For me, it's not about him throwing in shorts; it's about a lot of other things."

Russell was selected No. 1 overall by the Raiders in 2007 but was jettisoned after just three disappointing seasons.

Newton has been receiving tutelage from quarterbacks coach George Whitfield Jr. (who helped Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger during his four-game suspension to start the 2010 season) and Hall of Famer Warren Moon for the past month.

"The supporting cast that I have is pushing me to be great, I'm pushing myself to be great, and I demand greatness for myself. So coming in the door, working out every single day, I'm shooting for greatness," Newton said.

ESPN analyst and former NFL quarterback Trent Dilfer, who focuses on breaking down college quarterbacks predraft, came away impressed.

"He is a special talent," Dilfer said. "He's uniquely gifted. To be this much of a puppy, I mean, he hasn't played a lot of true quarterback in his life; to be this refined mechanically, you don't see this very often."

Mayock, for one, continues to reserve judgment.

"To me, there are two issues with this kid," he said. "Issue number one is he came out of a shotgun, and if you watch the tape it's basically a very simple offense. One read and either the ball was out or he was out. Can he adapt to, can he process and assimilate a very structured and complex pro offense against a complex pro defense?

"And secondly, and most importantly, when you get to a certain skill level in the NFL, which this kid certainly has, at the quarterback position what kind of kid is he? Is he going to be the first guy in the building? Is he a gym rat? Is he football smart? Is he a leader of men? All of those things to me are way more important than any workout in shorts."

I'm not offended by it. I think there's enough to be offended or just downright homicidally angry about when you're a Native American living on the continent that bringing up a sports franchise is just folly.

But I don't see how you can define, as a non native american, whether it's racist or not. Whether it's racist is up to two people - those who use it with racist intention and those who feel offended by it's use; as a victim of it.

I do acknowledge that you could be offended by it's use as a member of any race, but I'll agree w/ Diesel there (weird); to 'just STFU about it'. lol. That just complicates things too damn much.

Again - please note I'm not defining the term itself one way or the other - Remember Mr. Carlin's "7 words you can't say on television". There are no bad words. There are bad intentions, bad thoughts... and words.

On the receivers, I'm buying whatever it is that Mike Jones is selling ... mostly b/c he has picked up on 2 out of the 3 I'm selling ... Malcolm Floyd or Plaxico. The one he forgot is James Jones, but admittedly J Jones doesn't have the size Floyd or bullet pockets.

I would sign Braylon Edwards and keep Moss but only if they agreed to reasonable contracts. If not then o well. We find a bunch of guys and let them duke it out in camp. Jacoby Jones is interesting considering he already plays in our offense.

On the receivers, I'm buying whatever it is that Mike Jones is selling ... mostly b/c he has picked up on 2 out of the 3 I'm selling ... Malcolm Floyd or Plaxico. The one he forgot is James Jones, but admittedly J Jones doesn't have the size Floyd or bullet pockets.

Posted by: dcsween | February 11, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Wrong Jones. The one we want is Jacoby Jones.

6'2 210 and fast.

Plus he already knows the Genius Jr. schemes and should assimilate into the offense almost immediately with little learning curve there.

He didn't have the "breakout" year some were looking for last season, but that means he can;t demand stupid money on the market.

Even so he finished off the season pretty strong - 5 catches/70 yards average in his last 4-5 games. If he can average that over a season, we are talking 80 catches for 1100+ yards.

Malcolm Floyd is interesting, though we may already have a "Malcolm" who may be able to do the same stuff if he can stay healthy.

Just say "No" to Plax-i-co.

I don't know what a 30+ year old receiver does for this team. A couple years down the line - when we finally get good - his contract is either going to be up, or he's going to have bombed, or he's going to have played well and will demand even more $$ as an even older receiver.

Besides, we are not a "reclamation" kind of organization right now. We need to make smart conservative moves and collect a core of young low-risk (character-wise) players to build around.

Oh, and it didn't help us that our owner at the time was one of the world's biggest racists. Thanks Marshall!!!
Posted by: monk811 | February 11, 2011 2:00 PM |

Not to burst your bubble or rank on your in-depth offering but the folks that lobby to change the name of the Redskins couldn't care less about the name or if they are successful in affecting such change.
They want a payoff. That's it my man. Nothing more, nothing less. Then, when that money runs out, they come back for another one. The terms lobbyist is a synonym for 'shakedown artist'.

I don't know what a 30+ year old receiver does for this team. A couple years down the line - when we finally get good - his contract is either going to be up, or he's going to have bombed, or he's going to have played well and will demand even more $$ as an even older receiver.

Besides, we are not a "reclamation" kind of organization right now. We need to make smart conservative moves and collect a core of young low-risk (character-wise) players to build around.

Posted by: p1funk | February 11, 2011 2:33 PM

Agree to disagree. I say re-sign Santana for the 2-3 year deal ($5M a year for two is reasonable, less if its a three year deal) and take a flyer (or two years for Plaxigun). Burress was consistently one of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous, receivers in the league. Better than T.O., OchoJackson, or R.Moss ... only without the numbers of Fitzgerald. The DC market doesn't provide the luxury of intentionally taking years off during a re-build and Skins are nowhere close to have a full stable of reliable receivers. We need five total. We have two. Add Floyd or Burress (not both), learn up the guy they drafted last year (Austin?), and add one.

I'm not offended by it. I think there's enough to be offended or just downright homicidally angry about when you're a Native American living on the continent that bringing up a sports franchise is just folly.

But I don't see how you can define, as a non native american, whether it's racist or not. Whether it's racist is up to two people - those who use it with racist intention and those who feel offended by it's use; as a victim of it.

Posted by: DikShuttle | February 11, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Well, as a person WITH Delaware Indian blood in me, I'm not offended. And the actual name Redskin came from the Delaware Indians, which were made up of 2 tribes, the Nanticoke Indians and the Lenni Lenape Indians.

I would prefer to STFU about it, but that is a sore subject to me. I've been a fan since I was 8 years old and love the name of our franchise. I would get severely pissed off if they changed the name due to some uppity people that don't know what they are talking about!

Well, as a person WITH Delaware Indian blood in me, I'm not offended. And the actual name Redskin came from the Delaware Indians, which were made up of 2 tribes, the Nanticoke Indians and the Lenni Lenape Indians.

I would prefer to STFU about it, but that is a sore subject to me. I've been a fan since I was 8 years old and love the name of our franchise. I would get severely pissed off if they changed the name due to some uppity people that don't know what they are talking about!

Posted by: monk811 | February 11, 2011 2:49 PM |

I banged a full-blooded Nanticoke out in DE when I was at the beach last summer. Duuuuuude, that woman was build like an olympic athlete. You know the type, the ones that make you say, "Man, she's hot AND she could kick my ass!"

If we get rid of the name "Redskins," which is a term that originally was simply a reference to the physical appearance of "native americans," don't we have to get rid of the name cowboys? I mean the word redskins is a term to differentiate a person from other people based on race (but was not racist in origin), would the word "cowboy" which differentiates a person's profession and lifestyle from others be just as offensive.

I say don't change the name, but if we do, we have to change 1/3 of the team names in the NFL to maintain equity.

As mostly a lurker on this thread, I enjoy the annual RI discussions of "Redskin" that inevitably appear during the slow offseason.

(A year or two ago, an RI reg at that time came up with the Washington Red Lancers, in honor of Napoleon's elite infantry regiment known for their bada**ness. I thought that was pretty good, but who wants to honor the French?)

Anyway, wiki tells us that there are a couple of traditional uses of the mascot-- 1) to bring luck, 2) to signify an important local group, or 3) to signify a fighting spirit.

Let's skip category #1, because given the last 10 years of performance, we would probably all agree that there is nothing lucky about the Redskin moniker.

In terms of the second category, we have examples such as the Patriots, the Packers, the Yankees (which is sort of pejorative where I come from), the Cornhuskers, the 49ers, and the Steelers. Even the "Seminoles" makes sense given their location in Florida.

So, if we want to go with an historical tribe native to the DC region, we would have to go with the Washington Piscataways. Doesn't exactly roll of the tongue or inspire merchandising ideas. (Side note: As of the 2000 Census, DC was 50 out of 51 with registered Native Americans).

So, we are back to the idea of "Redskin" being synonymous with fighting spirit. It's safer here to go with vicious animals (Lions, Tigers, and Bears, oh my).

But people are different than animals in some important ways. They have logic, reason, and a conscience. Using a group of people to signify a fighting spirit discounts their rational abilities. It tends to reduce them in our minds to a group of brutal savages who prefer conflict resolution with a sword versus a pen.

And that's why I vote for a name change. I love the DC team, and will continue to support them after we have dropped "Redskin." We don't really care now about the "Wizard" label anymore, even though it makes no sense whatsoever given the categories above. I think fans just liked the alliteration with Washington and knew it was noncontroversial (unless you are Wiccan).

I say don't change the name, but if we do, we have to change 1/3 of the team names in the NFL to maintain equity.

Posted by: monkeymayonaise | February 11, 2011 3:00 PM

Huh?

Maybe just give them all numbers between 1 and 32 based on their draft ranking and change them every year. Next year we'd be the Washington 10's. Not much for team identity but great for jersey sales since the logo would change every year.

If there's a relatively experienced fair-to-middling slot receiver to be had for less than $5 mill per season, then invite him to Ashburn in for a workout.

Ask him play catch with the McNabb to see if he's any good at digging them out of the dirt -- and also have Grossman toss a few at him to see how quick he is at scrapping his pattern, fighting off a defender and catching a lollypop throw to his blindside.

And then get the trainers to give him the airport security treatment -- with a top to bottom MRI of the hammies -- looking for any signs of lingering damage or delicacy.

Award him bonus points if he stands any taller than 6 feet, weighs any more than 215 or 220, can run reasonably fast, can block reasonably well, and expresses any willingness at all to shag punts and kickoffs.

If you can get the total package for less than $5 million per season, the sign him and allow Moss to go elsewhere.

Otherwise, tender Moss a fair deal for a season or two, while you keep looking for the dude.

Damb ... and I wanted to talk about receivers and give the old "I'm not reading this" on the name/logo discussion.

My thinking is that they need a name that starts with the letter "R" and that all the good ones are taken. Eastern High School (right next to RFK) is the "Ramblers." Maybe a nice split level home on the side of the helmet would look cool.

Seriously, the team should honor Sean Taylor and become the "Reapers".

If you have to debate whether your name is racist... it's probably racist.

Posted by: DikShuttle | February 11, 2011 1:34 PM

I hate this line of thinking. Keeps you on the defensive and sure makes it easy for dimwits like jmarks to exercise their goofy, irrational, misplaced white guilt and do what they like to do best...control other people.

I do. Bullets were cool wizards are not. And my college mascot carries a freaking real life flint lock musket to our games.

Posted by: Stu27 | February 11, 2011 3:09 PM |

I was so annoyed at the name change when it went down that I fused the two names together and now call them the Buzzards. Strangely, it's far more descriptive of the team (post 1978 anyway)than either of the two real names ever were.

Thank God they changed the name and ended handgun violence in the District forever.

Using a group of people to signify a fighting spirit discounts their rational abilities. It tends to reduce them in our minds to a group of brutal savages who prefer conflict resolution with a sword versus a pen.

Posted by: swowra | February 11, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Sadly that's part of their history. They were peaceful before the whiteman came here and drove them out, forcing them to be violent.

But it's JUST FOOTBALL, and the name had nothing to do with violence to begin with. We're not reducing them to anything, it's just a game, and just a name, period.

BTW, Tyra Banks is afraid of dolphins (no, seriously, she is) so I am going to get a bunch of protestors ready to picket in front of the Miami Dolphin's stadium, Sun Life Stadium, to get the name changed, who's with me?

Yep, trying to change the name of the Redskins is just as dumb, point goes to monk!!!

Have a good weekend everybody, hopefully I can survive the first weekend without football, the first one is always the toughest!!!

I don't care so much about the name. It's all about the colors and motif. Burgundy and Gold is dead sexy when done correctly. Call them the PigSkins, Braves, Redskins (Potatoes), Hogs, the DMV BiG, whatever, just don't change the freakin colors.

You are a typical Redneck Deadskins fan so keep making excuses for the racist name and racist legacy of this sorry team.

And keep losing...and losing...and losing.

Go Ravens!

Posted by: jmarks09 | February 11, 2011 2:44 PM

Marks,

You're so right. Even though the average Ravens fan sports a mullet, a faint mustache, drives a purple IROC, the interior of which is littered with empty 'Natty Boh cans. They wear every shade of acid-washed jeans you can imagine which tuck their purple ray-ray jerseys into. When a Raven fan meets someone and asks, "So, where did you go to school?", they mention an elementary school.

You are a typical Redneck Deadskins fan so keep making excuses for the racist name and racist legacy of this sorry team.

And keep losing...and losing...and losing.

Go Ravens!

Posted by: jmarks09 | February 11, 2011 2:44 PM

Marks,

You're so right. Even though the average Ravens fan sports a mullet, a faint mustache, drives a purple IROC, the interior of which is littered with empty 'Natty Boh cans. They wear every shade of acid-washed jeans you can imagine which tuck their purple ray-ray jerseys into. When a Raven fan meets someone and asks, "So, where did you go to school?", they mention an elementary school.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I wonder how many people would object if the team were called the Washington Negroes?

While it might be just as offensive (if not more so) to some -- it could also be considered even more in keeping with the history, traditions and composition of our capital city. I mean, when is the last time we had an Indian tribe in Washington -- and when exactly were they exterminated?

Don't know how or why Dan Snyder just can't see how racist his brand name is to many -- and especially given the team's sad history in this regard.

"If we were called the Washington Scalpers then I'd see a problem with it, but I have looked this up and have proof, our name is derived not from hate or racism, but from the actual PAINTING OF FACES using a RED coloring."

Any way yuo try and sugar coat it, you are so very wrong.

"The word “Redskins” derives from the genocidal practice of scalping Native Americans to earn a bounty. Certain parts of the country valued these bloody clumps of flesh and hair (red skins) as currency."

"Santana Moss's contract voids today: so what are the Redskins' options?"

Either give him the reasonable $5 million/per or watch this offense take an even bigger crap than it did the last couple years.

One thing folks seem to be overlooking is that the odds are in favor of us not being able to get ANY free agents until after the draft. Which means if you need to make a run at 3 or 4 mid-level guys you badly need, it won't happen until this summer when the other 31 teams will be frantically seeking to fill out their rosters too.

It's gonna be a loooong few months if this CBA doesn't get done sooner rather than later....

"If we were called the Washington Scalpers then I'd see a problem with it, but I have looked this up and have proof, our name is derived not from hate or racism, but from the actual PAINTING OF FACES using a RED coloring."

Any way yuo try and sugar coat it, you are so very wrong.

"The word “Redskins” derives from the genocidal practice of scalping Native Americans to earn a bounty. Certain parts of the country valued these bloody clumps of flesh and hair (red skins) as currency."

It is hard to take your point seriously when you just looked-up the needle-in-a-haystack article by some wacko leftist web publication and cite it as a reference.

The claim that redskins name is founded in genocide is about as credible as the idea that the term "cowboys" is racist and degrading because it implies that white people have sex with cows.

The most amazing property of those who cry racism is that the people who do it are almost always themselves racist. We should change the name to the "White Devils" and see how many of these PC thugs get hot-under-the-collar about that...hypocrites.

"The word “Redskins” derives from the genocidal practice of scalping Native Americans to earn a bounty. Certain parts of the country valued these bloody clumps of flesh and hair (red skins) as currency."

Seems like Ives Goddard, Senior Linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution would disagree:

"The actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. It emerged at a specific time in history among a small group of men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth. Before its documented history can be traced, however, the false history given for it in standard reference books must be expunged."

"The term redskin doesn't imply superiority or inferiority therefore it's not racist. ...

POSTED BY: PAskinsfan17"

Wow -- that's just dumb.

Posted by: Samson151 | February 11, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Oh please explain then. How is it wrong? If it's so dumb you should be able to provide a reason or some proof to the contrary. I look forward to your lack of a reply.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 |

I'm with Sampson here. Some replies are so dumb they defy replying.

But I'll give it a shot. First, who made you God of Definitions? And in what universe are answers to complex issues so over- simplified?

Just one tiny example. The "N' word. To some blacks, talking among themselves, the N word implies neither superiority or inferiority. Depending on many factors, it can be a term of endearment, or a life threatening comment.

But if a white says it, under most imaginavle circumstances, it's racist...

Okay, another. "Redneck." When Jeff Foxworthy says it, it may well be funny. But if you have New York license plates, you might want to refrain from tossing the term around when you drive to Mississippi.

As for "Redskin," it can be deemed racist if a goodly number of Native Americans consider it offensive. I don't know your race, but unless you are Native American, you don't get to make the call.

If I'm not mistaken, SI or someone respectable did a survey of Native Americans not too long back and some 90% were NOT offended by "Redsskins" when it referred to the football team. Whether or not that makes it a racist term or not, is a complex issue. What is the cutoff point? 2%? 20%? 50%?

Send Santana on his way. The last thing the Redskins need is a receiver who shows up the other receivers. Darting down the field as if fired from a gun makes the rest of the team look slow and Santana should stop doing it. A steady lope would fit in with the team's speed. So what if slowing down keeps him from getting open he needs to fit in with his teammates or hit the bricks.

Why would any free agent want to play for the Redskins with this ongoing soap opera drama ? I mean a free agent could go anywhere I just don't see why they would come here to a losing organization without a quarerback , offensive line, defensive line or linebackers ? You have a coach who is stubborn with a spoiled punk son who likes to call out players in the media? You don't see teams like the Packers, Ravens, Steelers, Patriots etc using the media to call out players.. So again why would a free agent come here ? If I were Santana I would get out of here so fast and go some place with a chance to win....

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.